Categories

Join us for an info-packed 2 hour session on environmental toxins in everyday life. In our comfortable lives in this part of Australia, many of us don't think about the toxic exposures we get through the everyday products we use. Unfortunately, Australia has the World's 2nd Highest Cancer Incidence Rate (new cancer diagnosis rate) which means that we have very poor control over causes of cancer. You will be surprised to find some of the culprits....this knowledge can be really life-saving. Hurry and grab a ticket to join the discussion at Manly.

Professor Chapman attempted to ridicule the
concerns about mobile and wireless radiation (microwave/radio frequency
electromagnetic radiation or MW/RF-EMR) as an environmental toxin with
carcinogenic capacity by a growing body of scientists and clinicians. In
particular, he mentioned with scorn the popular neurosurgeon and former
Australian of the Year Dr. Charlie Teo, and me, a self-funded independent Australian
researcher.

Before I address the scientific evidence of adverse
biological effects, I would like to make a major correction to Professor Chapman’s
description of our one-and-only meeting. In what seems like an attempt to
portray me as a fear-mongering figure, he said “Last
year, a former student of mine asked to meet with me to discuss wifi on our
university campus. She arrived at my office with Bandara who looked worried as
she ran a EMF meter over my room. I was being pickled in it, apparently.” Yes,
I did go to talk to Professor Chapman with a friend who appears to be suffering
from WiFi microwave radiation, and with the professor’s permission I did
measure the ambient RF-EMR levels in his office. However, I certainly had no
reason look worried about Professor Chapman being “pickled” (not my jargon). On
the contrary to what he has reported, I told him good news – the levels in his
office were much lower than in most offices these days. Commenting on his
office RF-EMR exposure levels (in the frequency range 10MHz - 8 GHz) of 10 -100
micro watts/m, I said that he was a lot luckier than his former
student who has been exposed to much higher levels in her work space. Yes, his office levels were up to a thousand
times lower than my friend’s (10,000 -100,000 micro watts/m). I
also showed him with a DECT phone I carried with me, how proximity to a single transmitting
device could massively change one’s exposure, and we talked about the large
variability in people’s exposures depending on what devices they use (and how),
where they live and work.

I was keen to discuss the existing scientific evidence
of harm from rapidly increasing EMR in our living environments with Professor Chapman,
a former pioneering activist against the Big Tobaccos who deserves much credit
for his work to protect Australian public health from toxic and addictive
tobacco smoking. Professor Chapman knows, probably better than anyone else in
Australia, how tobacco industry-independent scientists struggled for many
decades to have their credible scientific evidence of harm accepted by the
health authorities due to manipulations by the Big Tobaccos. Manipulation of
science to their advantage hasn’t been limited to tobacco industry.

When Professor Joel Moskowitz, Director
of the Center for Family and Community Health at the School of Public Health at
University of California, Berkeley dedicates an active website (http://www.saferemr.com/)
to disseminating EMR safety information in an attempt to protecting public
health, I thought public health professors at the University of Sydney (where I
was a former academic staff member) would also be interested in the issue. I
was wrong. Despite the amicable meeting we had, I was surprised and disappointed
when Professor Chapman got fired up finding out (after the meeting) that I had
done work to qualify as an EMR “activist”. Perhaps my appearance in the media saying
there is enough scientific evidence to take the precautionary principle with
EMR and in particular, to reduce exposure of more vulnerable children bothered
him. I am not alone in this stance. This has been the conclusion of Sir (Professor)
William Stewart, former Chairman of the Health Protection Agency UK who
investigated the scientific research (see details in reference 2 below) and
many other very high profile scientific experts. All I sought in meeting with
Professor Chapman was an open and unbiased mind as a professor of public health
to the scientific evidence, yet he wrote this one liner to my subsequent single
email that showed the opposite: “Do not write to
me again”. True sceptics are those who
refuse to believe anything without seeing good evidence, not those who refuse to
see the evidence.

With respect, I would like to point out that Professor
Chapman’s expertise does not qualify him to assure EMR safety to the public. He
has no relevant scientific expertise in the area of biological effects of EMR
as a sociologist who has specialized in public health advocacy. Our meeting did not indicate that he had
attempted to find out if there could be any scientific evidence of harm from
EMR. He did email a single paper funded by wind farm industry to dispel health
concerns of wind turbines.

Professor Chapman is not new to controversy as he has
made many attempts to discredit those who claim adverse health effects from
nearby wind turbines (http://stopthesethings.com/2013/01/05/deals-done-in-ivory-towers/). While recognizing Professor Chapman’s
expertise in the area of risk perception, it is fair to say the situation with
wind farms represents an understudied complex environmental phenomenon
involving infrasound as well as electromagnetic fields and likely biological
responses to them. It is unfortunate that Professor Chapman while lacking the
pertinent scientific knowledge (physics of infrasound/EMFs and biological/physiological
effects induced by them) has taken a strong media assault on claims against
wind farms. Further, Professor Chapman has a clear conflict of interest in this
area having been paid by the wind farm industry (see the fine print declaration
at the end of this article: http://theconversation.com/lets-appoint-a-judge-to-investigate-bizarre-wind-farm-health-claims-41612)

Such controversial direct financial relationships
between industry and academic researchers clearly point to one critical need of
our times – to sever them in order to maintain truly independent academic
research. It is important to liaise with the industry to drive for excellence
in research, however, many hold my opinion that academic researchers should not
be financially dependent on industry. I
take the opportunity to recommend an excellent book on this topic “Rescuing
Science from Politics- Regulation and the Distortion of Scientific Research” by
high caliber US academics, Professors Wendy Wagner and Rena Steinzor. “This
book does an excellent job of flagging the concerns and pointing us in the
right direction toward reform” commented the New England Journal of Medicine.
And that’s not conspiracy theory.

Now, let me address the issue of harmful effects of
RF-EMR including carcinogenic potential. Whilst thermal effects are better
known, non-thermal effects in the absence of tissue heating also occur, even at
very low levels of exposure. Yet, our obsolete public exposure standards or
“safety” standards are only based on acute thermal effects, that is heating
effects evident in 6 minutes of exposure, which make them completely useless in
protecting people against chronic exposures and non-thermal effects. Without
going into detail, I would like to refer to some credible expert reports (which
can be accessed on the internet) that provide details of scientific evidence of
adverse biological effects.

PhD Thesis by Maisch D. 2010 (Wollongong University,
Australia) - An examination of the manipulation of telecommunications standards
by political, military, and industrial vested interests at the expense of
public health protection. Available at www.emfacts.com

One US military expert report even stated “human body
may be more sensitive to the nonthermal effects of RF/MW radiation” (page
2, Ref. 5). Yet, our authorities have ignored these non-thermal effects and
allowed public exposure to increase by billions of times over the last few
decades, most rapidly in the last decade or so with changes in deployment of
these technologies. What used to be very
limited exposure until a few decades ago (of military personnel exposed to
radar and populations living near TV/radio transmitter towers) has been allowed
to become widespread as transmitters came inside people’s homes in many forms of
mobile and wireless gadgets, particularly over the last decade or so – WiFi
routers, smart phones, DECT cordless phones, baby monitors etc. Most of the
teenagers I have talked to have admitted to having their microwave emitting
smart phones under the pillow at night. Why have our authorities kept a blind
eye to the adverse biological effects and not issued precautionary warnings? A
single statement in a US government report on the extensive RF-EMR research and
stricter control of exposure by the Russians and other former Soviet Bloc
countries, gives insights into the conflicts of interests within the authorities:
“If the more advanced nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of
stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavorable effects on industrial
output and military functions” (Summary page vii, ref. 4).

If one looks
at the world cancer map (http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/Map.aspx) produced by the World Health
Organization (WHO), it is evident that cancer is plaguing the industrialized
Western countries. The clear pattern points to environmental factors (rather
than genetic) as major causes. Sadly, the WHO branch International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC) is predicting a major surge in cancer around the
globe, particularly in the underdeveloped world (where the cancer levels have
been low until recent times) which in the face of inadequate health facilities
is going to be a major global health problem. RF-EMR is certainly one
environmental pollutant that has rapidly increased and often poorly regulated
in the underdeveloped countries over the last couple of decades.

The IARC on
31 May 2011, classified RF-EMR as a class 2B possible human carcinogen
after 30 international experts evaluated the scientific evidence available at
the time, particularly the emerging evidence linking mobile phone use to brain
cancer (http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf). Therefore, outright rejection of health
concerns like what Professor Chapman has done is clearly not warranted.

Brain cancers involved
complex pathobiological mechanisms and they may also have very long latency
periods up to 10-50 years. At this stage, three large case-control studies, (the
WHO’s 13-country Interphone study, Hardell group study of Sweden, CERENAT study
of France) published since 2010 involving several thousand brain tumour
patients and matching controls have shown a significant increase in risk
associated with mobile phone use. They pointed to a general picture of doubled
or higher brain tumour risk (particularly for gliomas) on the same side of the
head where a mobile phone was used, after 10 years of use. Findings of these
are summarised by expert authors in this recent review: Mobile phone radiation causes brain
tumors and should be classified as a probable human carcinogen (2A). Morgan LL, Miller AB, Sasco A, Davis DL. Int J Oncol.2015 May;46(5):1865-71. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2015.2908.
Epub 2015 Feb 25. Now,
this is one example out of several thousand peer-reviewed scientific
publications that couldn’t and shouldn’t be rubbished.

As shown by
Professor Chapman, the overall Australian brain cancer incidence has not
changed much since mid 1980s to 2011, our last publicly available data point.
These are all different types of brain cancers caused by factors that have not been
elucidated. We have discontinued or reduced the use of many environmental
toxins which may have contributed to brain cancers in the past and we are also
likely to have introduced new ones. For example, we have limited the exposure
to ionizing radiation by more stringent control of X-ray, which was freely used
to scan pregnant bellies and even to fit children’s’ shoes several decades ago.
Effects of such factors may cancel out each other and may prevent an overall
increase in incidence rates of some cancers. Further, there is evidence of
changed incidence rates of some forms of brain cancers. For example, a large
Australian study found an increased incidence of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM),
the most aggressive glioma type brain cancer and meningiomas with a reduced
incidence of Schwannomas between 2000 and 2008 (Dobes et al, Surg Neurol Int.
2:176 (2011) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22276231). Such opposing trends in the
incidence rates of brain cancer subtypes could effectively mask trends in the
overall incidence rate. Morgan et al review cited also discusses other similar
findings – for example a 2012 report of near doubling of GBM within a decade in
Denmark by the Danish Cancer Registry. So far these incidence data are not
publicly available. The incidence of GBM increased in the frontal and temporal
lobes, and in the cerebellum among adults of all ages in the U.S. A. (Zada et
al., 2012; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=22120376 ). Adding to the evidence for
caution when solely relying on cancer incidence data, some national cancer
registries have been shown to be unreliable. A recent study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25854296 ) that scrutinized the data in the Swedish
National Inpatient Register (IPR) and Causes of Death Register (CDR) against
the brain cancer incidence data in the Swedish Cancer Register (SCR) data for
the time period 1998–2013 found a statistically significant increase in brain
tumours in the IPR and the CDR but not in the SCR. Unclassified (type not
diagnosed) brain and central nervous system (CNS) tumours had increased, but
they did not appear to be reported to the SCR. Intriguingly, the EMF Project of
the WHO has used the SCR data (now shown to be unreliable) to deny a brain
cancer risk posed by mobile phone use. Professor Moskowitz of University of
California at Berkeley has informative slides on cancer data on his website:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B14R6QNkmaXuU180Q3F6Nzl4TVE/view?pli=1

We certainly
need to carefully monitor incidence rates of all brain cancer subtypes, particularly
GBM that has shown a significant association with mobile phone usage in
multiple studies, as well as the incidence rates of benign tumours (such as meningiomas
and acoustic neuromas that have already shown an association with the use of
mobile phones) beyond 2011 when the widespread mobile phone use would
accumulate considerable years of exposure comparable to long latency periods of
such tumours. In particular, Smartphone use (much higher exposure than previous
mobile phones) and WiFi are relatively new and any effects may take decades to
be seen.

Another
important factor to be considered is the thick bony skull that protects the
brain from EMR to much greater extent than exposed soft tissue. Our focus on brain
cancer has taken the attention away from more susceptible tissues. For example,
considering where people keep mobile phones and WiFi-enabled devices like
laptops, we need to pay attention to not just cancer but all chronic
inflammatory conditions of eyes, thyroid and salivary glands, breasts,
testicles, prostate, wombs, ovaries, kidneys, liver etc, and very importantly
to the dwindling sperm quality in men. Data shows that incidence rates for cancers
in many of these tissue types have been on the increase (Table 1) – some
dramatically. For example, thyroid (known increased sensitivity to ionizing
radiation) cancer incidence rate has been rapidly rising since the ‘80s
(Fig.1a) and that’s not in the ageing Australians. The trend is in fact worse
in young females (Fig.1b) and that is also unlikely due to effective diagnosis
of a hidden thyroid cancer reservoir due to better screening as asymptomatic
young people don’t usually go for scans. Whist presented data for women aged
35-40 may represent a group that is subjected to higher level of screening due
to investigations of sub-fertility for example, doubling of incidence rates even
in younger women, aged 20-30 years indicates a true increase in incidence rates.

Table 1.
Some cancers that have rapidly increased in the Australian population

The current
wealth of scientific evidence available needs to be evaluated by appropriately
qualified biological scientists and clinicians with the expertise required to
make sound judgements. Considering this dire need, it is necessary to mention
the fair criticism Australia’s peak research organization in the EMR area, the
Australian Centre for RF Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) has attracted due to the lack
of professional expertise it demonstrates. Appointment of a psychologist
(Professor Rodney Croft) as the Executive Director of this program, rather than
a biological scientist with the necessary scientific expertise in biological
effects remains questionable. Both Professors Chapman and Croft do one thing
very clearly – ignore the vast evidence of physiological/ biochemical effects
of EMR and attribute a psychological nature to health complaints. That’s neither
scientific nor helpful!

Well, yes, public transport is another danger zone. One should carry an EMR meter and measure the levels of microwaves in buses and trains (like I have done). If 50 people on a bus (Sydney buses can carry 70 passengers) are downloading info on their smart phones and tablets or even have these wireless enabled devices, they contribute to a lot of microwave radiation inside a metal cage. These waves reflect off metal surfaces and people inside can have much worse exposure.

Wireless technologies are sweeping across schools exposing young children to microwave radiation. This is not in line with the Precautionary Principle. A typical classroom with 25 WiFi enabled tablets/laptops (each operating at 0.2 W) generates in 5 hours about the same microwave radiation output as a typical microwave oven (at 800 W)in 2 min. Would you like to microwave your child for 2 min (without causing heating as it is done very slowly using lower power) daily? For the scientific evidence of harm see the Bioinitiative Report.

The Hills Shire community has been campaigning to move a proposed mobile mast away from the Castle Hill High School and surrounding children's facilities. Now the Hills folks are launching a national campaign to make the current 500m from schools recommendation by the Department of Education NSW enshrined in the law of Australia. This is backed by local Members of Parliament at State and Federal level. Please see if you can help www.notower.com.au